At least one pilot in airline Widerøe ( Norwegian airline ) has opted for early retirement rather than continue to endure the security routines at Norwegian airports.

Tom Erik Liverud, head of Widerøe's pilot union confirmed this to newspaper Adresseavisen.

A captain chose to retire early primarily because of what he called "security madness".

"He is happy to be retired and finished with this. This is a marked contrast to some years ago when pilots were sad to give up their dream jobs when they passed 60," Liverud said.

Just a few days ago a Widerøe pilot delayed a departure from Namsos for refusing to take off his shoes in a security check, and reportedly screamed - 'I am no terrorist!'.

This problems is most acute on the short hop networks where pilots and other crew may have to go through security checks up to ten times a day, all year round, even if their exit and re-entry is due to a trip to the toilet or to get a cup of coffee.

"The security demands are all for show and in some situations are counterproductive. All a pilot needs to crash a plane is his hands. It feels meaningless to use so many millions of crowns without even carrying out a risk analysis," Liverud said.

The Norwegian Airline Pilots Association believes that flight crews should have separate arrangements, like customs officers and police, who are allowed to freely pass through airport security checks when on duty.

Yes its indeed correct . I guess if a pilot wants to crash a plane he can and doesnt need to take anything else on board with him!!! There should be special express channels for pilots and they still need to be scanned but taking off shoes etc... is a bit much. They are security checked for ID anyway so the risk is alot less.

It's a shame he has made that decision.
There should be a 'secure ID' program for all cockpit and cabin flight crew in most countries for entry and exit to/from flights. In Norway, you have a national ID card that when read could give the secure status, no need for removing shoes, and other nonsense, although bags would still need to go through X-rays outbound and customs if needed inbound on international non EC routes. For the USA, they have proposed this for frequent flyers and could be easily copied over to cockpit and cabin crews too, as well as having all but the smallest airports have separate express lanes for outbound security for flight crews and airport employees.

Quoting CJAContinental (Reply 3):[quote=AF340,reply=2]I thought they did. They have their own customs line, at least at YYZ.[/quote=AF340,reply=2]

I've seen it at IAH as well.

At large airports that's quite usual, however Widerøe operate to many small regional airports in Norway and Scandinavia where there is often only one customs line for the entire terminal. I can understand the frustration, if he was approaching retirement and free to go at any time, the extra irritating measures would have just tipped his decision.

Maybe we are better off to be rid of pilots with such short fuses that they scream at security personnel or retire early because they can't deal with the stresses of their jobs? Maybe these pilots would not be the best ones to have in command during an emergency. Just a thought...

This is only one of several cases in Norway lately, concerning this issue. Several pilots have voiced their opinions on this issue and how they feel criminalized, being searched several times a day at various airports in Norway.

What if the pilot is commuting in his uniform to his flight? Then he does not have the power to crash the plane and should probably be subject to the same requirements as other passengers since he is riding in back.

I feel for the pilot. Bottom line is flight crews can kill everyone on board withouth weapons or shoe bombs. I agree that all flight crew (Not so much cabin crew) should be allowed into the aircraft without or with little screening. As mentioned above, just like cops and security staff are. In fact, a cop or security staff member would be more likely to bring a weapon on to an aircraft that a pilot, as it is pointless for a pilot seeing as his hands can be deadly if decided upon

Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 9):What if the pilot is commuting in his uniform to his flight? Then he does not have the power to crash the plane and should probably be subject to the same requirements as other passengers since he is riding in back.

Very good point, the crew lanes should require paperwork stating that he is working on the flight.

I have a good friend who's a VP at a major investment bank in NYC. Every day since 9/11, every single day, he must go through beefed up security to get into the building, which includes metal detectors and searching his bags and such. No shoe removal, but that's about the only difference than the airport.

And he's a million dollar employee who knows all the security people by name! It's a procedure, it's stupid, but it's just the way it is. Not one executive at that company has ever blown up a building or shot anyone at work, but they still treat them all "like criminals" (and not the white collar kind... )

But he's not going to quit over it or start yelling at people.

Here at the movie studios in Los Angeles, cars are routinely searched, even executives and famous actors/directors. They check for bombs underneath and look in your trunk. Again, you know most of the security people, and in this case, if they know you, they may not do it every single day, but you'll still be checked routinely. And not one studio has ever been bombed or hijacked...

I really feel that pilots consider themselves a special class of people sometimes, the way they talk about their mistreatment in all facets of their jobs as if the rest of the world is treated better and paid more. Where does this mentality come from?

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):I have a good friend who's a VP at a major investment bank in NYC. Every day since 9/11, every single day, he must go through beefed up security to get into the building, which includes metal detectors and searching his bags and such. No shoe removal, but that's about the only difference than the airport.

Pilots feel victimized because of the lack of common sense in the policies. Why should pilots be forced to go through a security screening, while other employees can use their airport ID to bypass security? (I won't go into details as to who can bypass security as that is somewhat sensitive information).

It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 14):For all you pilots who feel "victimized" you need a reality check.

I have a good friend who's a VP at a major investment bank in NYC. Every day since 9/11, every single day, he must go through beefed up security to get into the building, which includes metal detectors and searching his bags and such. No shoe removal, but that's about the only difference than the airport.

And he's a million dollar employee who knows all the security people by name! It's a procedure, it's stupid, but it's just the way it is. Not one executive at that company has ever blown up a building or shot anyone at work, but they still treat them all "like criminals" (and not the white collar kind... )

Does your friend have to go through security 10 times a day?

Is he strip-searched every time he needs to go to the bathroom?

Does he have to take off his shoes and belt in front of his employees every time he wants a cup of coffee?

Is he being harassed by security people who want to use their power impress upon him that they can dictate whatever he's going to do in the security check?

Also, there are many other facts that you should know about, such as: Many of the airports that this airline is flying to are small airports with very bad runways. The airport authorities cannot afford to upgrade the runways and make the airports safer. The reason? They're spending all their money on "security." One day, we could end up in a situation where two of these pilots will be killed because the authorities spend all their money on security, and none on safety.

In rural Norway there's no need to inspect pilots who emerge from small aircraft which they have obviously flown in.

However, in JFK and LHR it is clearly necessary to subject all crew to security checks. Pilots (there) can be of all races and appearances. There is no perfect way to separate real crews from Al Qaeda, so we must search everybody.

Otherwise it's like "Oh S*** that pilot just whipped out like 7 guns and is screaming Islamic slogans" etc etc. Pilots need to be searched to avoid that scenario.

I'm not defending the practices, I'm just appalled by the attitude of some of these pilots.

Then again, pilots and F/As and such have been found to be smuggling all sorts of contraband over the years, so the idea that all pilots are beyond reproach is not exactly supported by the facts, is it?

And of course there's nothing stopping a pilot from passing something to a passenger on a different plane who then uses it to bring down/hijack that plane, but I guess we can't consider that either?

Quoting ZKSUJ (Reply 13):I'm sure they can incorporate something into the airport ID. A magnetic chip or something... That might be cheaper

But IDs can be swapped/modified. Hard to do that with a fingerprint. Yes, it can be done, but it's harder.

If you leave the building for any reason, you must do it again. Take a lunch meeting, back through security. Go out to dinner before returning to work until midnight? Back through security. Go outside for a smoke (smoking is illegal inside), back through security. Add that up for a smoker, it might be 10 times a day.

And there's even a bigger difference here. The entire building in question is owned and occupied by the company. At least at an airport, it's a third party check, where you have multiple companies and agencies who may not have 100% information on each other. Here, it's the guy's own company who does this every time he enters the building. They pay him close to a million bucks a year including bonuses, yet they make him do it each and every time just like the janitors and receptionists and one-time visitors.

He doesn't consider himself victimized. But he doesn't have an entitlement mentality.

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 16):Pilots feel victimized because of the lack of common sense in the policies.

To be a victim, you must be treated differently than everyone else and be harmed. Pilots are treated NO differently than anyone else nor are they harmed, but they expect to be treated differently or they claim harm? Why is that defensible?

Quoting RedChili (Reply 17):Is he strip-searched every time he needs to go to the bathroom?

Pilots aren't either, so what's your point? Taking off your shoes is not being strip searched. When you are stripped searched, you'll know it...

And the bathroom thing is one absurd red-herring argument.

There aren't a lot of airports where the bathrooms are outside security (with none inside), and in those places, everyone has to do the same thing. But yes, if the bathrooms in his building were only operated in the lobby, then yes, he would have to I guess.

Quoting C680 (Reply 19):You seem to be defending the same procedures that you also acknowledge are stupid.

No, I'm not actually. I'm saying the rules may be stupid, but pilots aren't being singled out so they should stop complaining as if they are. This is the overreactive environment we live in. And frankly, it makes more sense to screen pilots at an airport than it does to screen executives at a company owned building. Are pilots subjected to security at their corporate headquarters? (seriously, I have no idea. are they?)

I'm saying that pilots want different treatment than everyone else, and this is just one more case of pilots considering themselves to be above the rest of the working world, not subjected to the same market realities, believing their job is the most stressful, most important, they work the most hours, they have to go through the most to get to "the top." I read the union statements on these forums over the years, and the pilot comments about how mistreated they are, both working pilots and aspiring pilots, and it comes off as this expectation of privilege and entitlement to riches. It is such a common attitude among pilots, at least if the union leadership and the comments by pilots on a.net are anything to go by. Maybe they aren't, but I don't see a lot of pilots chiming in to oppose the union view or the view of the most militant pilots on a.net...

Every exception provides an oppurtunity that can be exploited. Provide enough oppurtunities and they will be exploited. As time passes there are always calls to weaken security and if the responsible parties bow to the pressure we end up back at the 'Bad Old Days'.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 20):In rural Norway there's no need to inspect pilots who emerge from small aircraft which they have obviously flown in.

However, in JFK and LHR it is clearly necessary to subject all crew to security checks. Pilots (there) can be of all races and appearances. There is no perfect way to separate real crews from Al Qaeda, so we must search everybody

Surely the reason for the security is, that once passengers (or crew) enter the sterile area at even a rural airport as in this case, they can then disembark as transfer passengers, into a regional hub, and thus to an International airport without further security checks.

25 ADXMatt
: I feel for the pilot but he didn't need to throw a hissy fit. BTW in the USA crew members in Uniform do not have to take off their shoes unless they s

26 Someone83
: As mentioned by other, we do not have a national ID card in Norway The problem here is not the fact that the pilots has to go through security, but t

27 YULWinterSkies
: Yes but AFAIK 9/11 did not happen in Northern Norway, neither involved citizens and politicians of Norway... He is rightfully upset and is right in t